# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMILY TARSELL, * No. 10

- 251V

as the Executrix of the Estate of

, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

CHRISTINA TARSELL, *

* Filed: May 1 3 , 2015

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Attorneys’ fees and costs ; interim

* award; amount which is not disputed.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mark T

. Sadaka. , Mark T. Sadaka, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner;

Ann D

. Martin. , United States Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 1

Emily Tarsell claims that human papillomavirus quadrivalent (“HPV”)

vaccines administered to her daughter, Christina, on August 22, 2007, November

20, 2007, and June 3, 2008, caused an autoimmune reaction in the nervous tissue

of Christina’s heart that caused cardiac ar rhythmia resulting in her death . Ms.

Tarsell seeks compensation pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 through 34 (2012) . Her case remains pending.

Ms. Tarsell is now a warded, on interim basis, attorneys’ fees and costs in the

total amount of $173,107.70

. See Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 515

F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

On M ay 6, 2015 , Ms. Tarsell filed a motion for interim attorneys’ fees and

costs, seeking a total of $ 173,107.70 . This request includes w ork performed by

Ms. Tarsell’s attorney, Mark T. Sadaka, in the near five years from the filing of

Ms. Tarsell’s petition through February 17, 2015. This time p eriod includes the

preparation for, and participation in, a two

- day hearing held in November 2014, as

well as Ms. Tarsell’s prehearing and posthearing briefs.

O n May 12 , 2015 , respondent filed a revised st ipulation sta ting that

respondent will not object to an award of $ 173,107.70

, for Ms. Tarsell’s interim

attorney s ’ fees and costs

. 2

Regardless of whether they are entitled to compensation, petitioners who

bring their petition in good faith and who have a reasonable basis for the petition

may be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

– 15(e)(1).

Respondent does not contend that Ms. Tarsell fails to satisfy this standard. Thus,

Ms. Tarsell is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 3

After a determination that Ms. Tarsell is eligible for an award of attorneys’

fees and costs, the next question is to decide the reasonable amount. A revie w of

the materials offered in support of the motion for interim attorneys’ fees and costs

indicates that the requested amount is reasonable. Therefore, Ms. Tarsell is

awarded the amount to which respondent did not object. This decision awards Ms.

Tarsell all the attorneys’ fees and costs through February 17, 2015

.

There is no just reason to delay the entry of judgment on interim attorneys’

fees and costs. Therefore, in the absence of a motion for review filed under RCFC

Appendix B, the clerk of court s hall enter judgment in petitioner’s favor. Those

fees and costs are awarded as follows:

A lump sum of $173,107.70

, in the form of a check made payable to

petitioner, E m ily Ta r sell , and petitioner’s attorney, Mark T. Sadaka

, for interim attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs available under 42

U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

2 Respondent originally filed the stipulation on May 6, 2015, this original stipula tion

incorrectly listed the amount requested in petitioner’s motion for interim fees, and was stricken.

3 The finding that the petition was supported by good faith and reasonable basis is not

intended to suggest whether Ms. Tarsell is entitled to compe nsation.3

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 4 The court thanks the parties

for their cooperative efforts in resolving this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Christ ian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal

Claims judge.